Изображения страниц


position) who have no tolerance for those who venture to differ from them. In such cases it becomes a matter of Christian prudence that persons should not speak of their religion--not only for their own sakes, but in order that they may prevent intemperate controversy and blasphemy.

It is really one of the strongest testimonies that can be borne to Catholic Truth, that the upholding of it provokes so much hostility. It is the thing of all others at the present day which is prone to call forth all the bitterness of man's unrenewed heart. have known several persons say that they had rather their children became “Papists,” or die, tban take up High Church principles in the English Communion. Can any one fail to see the reason ? Death would of course remove the cause of offence, and this is all that in their selfish passion they care for. The belonging to another Communion would so entirely isolate the offending member, that there would be no room for the conscience to be making comparisons (as now it involuntarily does) unfavourable to itself. It is the old conflict between God and the world. And it is a facthowever much people may try to hide it from themselves,—that there is now no real energetic religion existing in the Anglican communion, or with Dissenters, save among this “sect that is thus everywhere spoken against.”

Let parents, then, and others only be willing to afford that Christian freedom to those whom they desire to control in such points, as the Gospel and the English Church have expressly sanctioned, and they will find that in every moral respect and in every social relationship they will have cause to bless God that He has kindled this spark of religious feeling in our day. The saints of old had to hide themselves in the dens and caves of the earth ;"> the Apostles by reason of the unpromising character of their religion were made as the filth of the earth and the offscouring of all things : they were compelled to declare that they would obey God rather than man : yea our LORD expressly said that He was come to “set” members of the same family “ against" each other. This is what we see now and must be prepared to see, and to bless God when we see it : for it is nothing but His Grace which can enable persons when necessary, to break these so-constraining ties; and it is a manifest proof that the “strong man armed” is not any longer permitted to keep his house in peace.

Peace, on the one hand, we see, is not always good. Neither, 1 One very striking instance of the kind came under the writer's own knowledge, A member of an ultra-Protestant family, after having joined the Church of Rome, was brought back to the English Church Communion by the agency of some High Church people, and for some years lived and worked under the direction of a clergyman. During the whole time, the lady in question was not allowed to see or to communicate with any member of the family. Again, in the troublous times that ensued, she relapsed to the Roman Communion; and immediately upon this the family went to see her, and resumed their usual friendly relations with her, and permitted her freely to choose her own mode of life!


[ocr errors]



on the other, are we forgetful that resistance to authority is a temptation full of danger-especially to the young. But conscience must be respected : the power of parents, and husbands, and masters is a limited authority; the parochial system also has its limits : while the interests of the soul and the claims of God are supreme : the soul must not be left without grace; the conscience must not be allowed to prey morbidly upon itself, as though there

no balm in Gilead." The Church tells us that the Sacraments are necessary for all persons to their salvation ; and if any person cannot go to the altar with a quiet conscience, he is permitted and admonished to go to a Priest in order that he may receive the benefits of absolution together with ghostly counsel and advice. This is the law of the English Church, and it must, out of very charity, be maintained inviolate.

But this is leading us away from Mr. Ryle and his able commentator ; although it is a part of the pamphlet before us which has suggested this train of thought. Mr. Ryle had dealt largely in the charge of dishonesty against his opponents, on the second of the two grounds before referred to. The substance of it is embodied in the paragraph which follows :

“Whether men like it or not, it is an acknowledged fact that the first five Archbishops of Canterbury-Cranmer, Parker, Grindal, Whitgift, and Abbott-were decidedly Calvinistic in sentiment, and discouraged all kind of teaching which was opposed to the Calvinistic school. As to such men as Jewell, Hooper, Latimer, Becon, Rogers, and Bradford, who were all leaders of the Church of the Reformation, let any

honest man read their works, and he will soon discover the tenour of their opinions. Could any one of them be raised at this moment, and tell us whether the Church of England is most faithfully represented at S. George's, Bloomsbury, or at S. Paul's, Knightsbridge, and S. Barnabas', Pimlico, I have not the smallest doubt what his opinion would be.”—Pp. 12, 13.

It is to this (as he justly designates it) "most dishonest sentence” that the writer under review, chiefly addresses himself; and it is due to him that he shall be allowed to show how satisfactorily he disposes of Mr. Ryle's charge, and flings it back upon the original assailant.

" In the first place, it is obvious to remark that the persons named were not the first five Archbishops of Canterbury. The first Archbishop of Canterbury was Augustine, and the present Archbishop of Canterbury counts his succession from him. But Mr. Ryle will perhaps regard this as hypercriticism, as it is probable that he dates Christianity in this country from the Reformation. We will let it


with this one observation, that Archbishop Parker, who is one of the Reformers whom Mr. Ryle accepts as an authority, was accustomed to speak of himself as the 70th Archbishop of Canterbury; and in reference to his Book De Antiquitate Britannicæ Ecclesiæ,' calls it, ‘My Book



of my Canterbury Predecessors.' This Reformer regarded the Church of England like Bishop Bull, as · A Church not made now but reformed.' But assuming the Reformation to have commenced in the Primacy of Cranmer, the persons named by Mr. Ryle were not even then the first five Archbishops of Canterbury. The successor of Cranmer was Reginald Pole. But Mr. Ryle will say he was a Papist, and not to be counted. The persons spoken of are the Archbishops of Canterbury within a given period; and whatever were their principles, we cannot alter the facts of the case to suit our convenience, and supply us with an argument. But we will give up Reginald Pole, although to do so is very much the same as if, in speaking of the Sovereigns of our country, we should describe the Tudors as Henry VII., Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth, and call them the four Tudor Sovereigns, ignoring the history of Mary. However, not to be hypercritical, we will let this pass also. How stands the case then ? The order of the Archbishops was Cranmer, Pole, Parker, Grindal, Whitgift, Bancroft, and Abbott. Why, if we omit Pole, are we to omit Bancroft? The answer is obvious : no one, I presume, could by any possibility reckon Bancroft a Calvinist; and, therefore, his existence is to be ignored that Ryleites may have a formula which declares the first five Archbishops to have been Calvinists. Archbishop Bancroft's own words are, · For Mr. Calvin and Mr. Beza, I think of them and of their writings as they deserve; but I think better of the Ancient Fathers, I must confess.

“Oh! Mr. Ryle, Mr. Ryle, when next you call up spirits from the vasty deep,' I hope that some good friend will be at hand to whisper in your ear the words of Hotspur.

“But, suppose the facts admitted, what then? Mr. Ryle tells us that we are each to take the Bible and interpret it without deference to any human authority. Is it honest, then, to bring forward authority to prejudice us in favour of the view taken by Mr. Ryle? Why is the fiction invented but to overwhelm us with authority ? And is it not dishonest on the part of one who disclaims authority thus to assail us ? Why should these five selected prelates have weight with me if the Prayer Book is to have none? I have accepted the Prayer Book as an authority for reasons I shall hereafter give, but I consider my own opinion to be just as likely to be a good one as that of Cranmer, Grindal, or Abbott. I do not defer to their teaching a bit more than I do to that of Mr. Ryle. The question as to the Reformation does not turn upon what they privately and individually believed, but on what they publicly and collectively embodied in our formularies. And what had Grindal, Whitgift, or Abbott to do with these? If the first five Protestant Archbishops were Calvinists it could have no effect upon the Church of England. Archbishop Sumner is a Calvinist; he succeeded

; Archbishop Howley who was orthodox. This has made no change in the Church of England. Whichever of these two Prelates were right, the Church of England remains as it was, and the only point proved is, that the Church of England is more tolerant than Mr. Ryle, and allows a certain latitude of opinion. Mr. Ryle would have us accept as a fact his opinion, that the first five Archbishops were Calvinists, and would have us infer that the Church of England must be Calvi


nistic also. And his opinion he asserts as an acknowledgedfact. Acknowledged by whom?. Mr. Ryle takes too much for granted if he supposes all the Clergy of England to be as ignorant as he represents the clergy of the Evangelical party to be. Is Mr. Ryle acquainted, or is he not, with the far-famed Bampton Lectures of Archbishop Laurence ? If he is not, what right has he to dogmatize on subjects which he has never investigated ? If he is, what are we to think of his honesty ? Archbishop Laurence was no High Churchman. Like Mr. Ryle, he regarded the Reformers, not indeed as the authors of Christianity, but as the founders of the Church. But he has proved by the production of facts and documents that our Reformers were not Calvinistic but Lutheran. He observes : ‘Our Reformers, had they been so disposed, might have turned their attention to the novel establishment at Geneva, which Calvin had just succeeded in forming according to his wishes; might have imitated its singular institutions, and inculcated its peculiar doctrines: but this they declined, viewing it perhaps as a faint luminary (for as such only could it be contemplated), scarcely in the horizon of its celebrity. This they might have done; but they chose rather to give reputation to their opinions and stability to their sys- tem by adopting, when reason permitted, Lutheran sentiments, and expressing them in Lutheran language.'-- Archbishop Laurence's Bampton Lectures, p. 26. See also Waterland, ii. 387.

“If Mr. Ryle desires higher authority, we may refer him to Calvin himself. According to Calvin's own account, his influence in this kingdom, even at a later date, was very inconsiderable ; for in a letter addressed to the exiles at Frankfort, in the reign of Mary, he admitted that our countrymen attached but little credit to his name, or weight to his opinion. Discord existed among them on the subject of our Liturgy, the Calvinistic party being violently opposed to our Book of Common Prayer. After giving them some sensible and seasonable advice

upon the occasion, he added, Sed ego frustra ad eos sermonem converto, qui forte non tantum mihi tribuunt, ut consilium a tali auctore profectum admittere dignentur. (Epist. p. 158.) It is, indeed, curious to observe, as the Archbishop remarks, that in the works of that prolix historian, John Fox, the Martyrologist, not one of the martyrs under the persecution of Mary was accused of having adopted the sentiments of Calvin ; but they were charged with holding the opinions of either Luther or Zuinglius. While Fox himself, though dwelling in detail upon the writings and merits of both the latter, does not distinguish the name or immortalize the memory of Calvin ; so little was he accounted of among our Reformers."'--Pp. 13–17.

The next and by far the largest portion of the pamphlet is in reply to the challenge in the latter part of the paragraph from Mr. Ryle, in reference to the inconsistency of Catholic Doctrines and Services with the opinions of “the Reformers.” Here also our author shall speak for himself; and if the extract be deemed long, there is nothing in it, it will be seen, that is capable of abridgment.

“ I have never attended service either at S. George's, Bloomsbury, or at S. Barnabas', Pimlico, and I have only twice been present during

3 R



[ocr errors]

Divine Service at S. Paul's, Knightsbridge; and, perhaps, I should have faults to find in all of them. I cannot, therefore, take it upon me to give so decided an opinion upon the subject as Mr. Ryle does. In order, however, that my readers may be able to form some judgment upon the subject, I will lay before them an account of the Church of England Service as it existed long before the time of Laud, and as it is handed down to us by an historian who would agree with Mr. Ryle in all doctrinal opinions : The service performed in the Queen's chapel, and in sundry cathedrals, was so splendid and showy that foreigners could not distinguish it from the Roman, except that it was performed in the English tongue.'--Neal's History of the Puritans, i. 156. Whether the practices at S. George's, Bloomsbury, or S. Paul's, Knightsbridge, are most conformable to these practices of the reformers, Mr. Ryle must judge. I, like himself, have not the smallest doubt upon the subject.

“But would Mr. Ryle know the opinions of Archbishop Parker ? There happened to be a crucifix in the Queen's chapel. The Marian exiles, who had many of them returned to England prejudiced against the reformation of Cranmer and Ridley, protested against its retention. Who appeared in defence of the crucifix ? No less a person than Archbishop Parker. As a matter of expediency, the crucifix was removed ; but so much attached was the great Protestant Queen to this decoration of her chapel, that, in 1570, it was restored. The Archbishop censured the restoration as inexpedient ; but, as Hallam says, coldly. A Puritan Pamphleteer denounced the Queen's chapel, which afforded a model to other churches, as “the pattern and precedent of all superstition.'-Hallam, i. p. 186 ; Strype's Parker, ii. p. 35.

“I do not know whether at S. George's there is an eagle, or whether at either church they use wafer bread at the Lord's Supper; but Archbishop Parker approved of both.

“I do not know what Mr. Ryle's notions of the Sabbath but Archbishop Parker, who thought much of maintaining what he called the port of a Bishop,' was accustomed to give the most sumptuous entertainments on Whit-Sunday and Trinity Sunday.

“Archbishop Parker would require daily service in church : would he find it in S. George's ? Would not the rector almost think it wicked ? He required his whole family twice a day, morning and evening, to resort to the chapel-he himself seldom or never being absent, unless in case of sickness, or some weighty affairs of state'Strype's Parker, ii. p. 442.

. "I have never heard of processions at S. George's, but I know that Archbishop Parker was very particular in having them carefully arranged. At his visitation he directed that :—First, the service to be done in the choir at eight o'clock in the morning. Secondly, that all they of the choir, with the whole foundation, stand in the body of the church, on either side of the middle aisle, in due order, and that the dean, prebendaries, and preachers do come to the palace to wait on my Lord's Grace to the church. Item : At the entry of my Lord's Grace into the church, the choir to go up before him singing some anthem. Item : They being all placed in the choir shall sing the Litany.'

“ This was the order of proceeding arranged by our great reformer


be ;

[ocr errors]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »